In one of the best Afterburners in a while (1), Bill Whittle looks at the trial of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin and proclaims it nothing less than one of the great civil rights violations of our time — a violation of Zimmerman’s rights:

This information about Martin’s use of “Lean” and its side-effects (paranoia, physical aggressiveness) is new to me. That the judge barred the evidence is flabbergasting, as it bears directly on Martin’s state of mind that night. Remember, he had lost Zimmerman, got to his destination, and then went back to confront Zimmerman at his truck. And yet Martin using a drug that could lead to this kind of behavior wasn’t ruled admissible?

4 Responses to “(Video) The lynching of George Zimmerman”

Comments

Martin’s state of mind that night is not – NOT – one of the legally significant facts at issue in the trial. If the prosecution has introduced evidence of his law-abiding character and general reputation for good behavior; maybe. However, none of that was known to Zimmerman that night. And the central issue – indeed the only issue – in the trial was whether or not, under the circumstances that existed there that night which were known to Zimmerman, a reasonable person would have had reason to believe himself in danger of death or serious bodily injury from Martin. All the other facts to make out manslaughter were effectively admitted by the defense; murder 2 was out because the prosecutors had no, none, zip, zero, zilch evidence to prove the “depraved state of mind” which Florida law requires for a conviction of that offense. If the self-defense was not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state, then Zimmerman gets acquitted; if it is, he gets convicted of manslaughter. If you watched any of the trial or saw any of the videos of the witnesses’ testimony at “Legal Insurrection” or elsewhere, you would know that the state’s evidence proved Zimmerman’s defense for him. And to forestall the usual foolishness: I am a retired attorney whose practice was nearly all criminal defense and a likewise retired court reporter, who practiced that trade in state district court in Texas for about 15 years in addition to 10 more years in the military, for a total of 35 years in the courtroom. I know what I’m talking about, in other words.

Much was made about Zimmerman’s injuries being “non life-threatening”. That is the whole idea behind the right of self-defense. To allow an attacker to initiate a physical assault just out of curiosity to see how far he might go is called “suicidal gallantry”.

:)>- Acquittal was justified. End of story. Why don’t we hear about that case where a young girl who was raped and murdered by two black subjects? Martin lost his life because of his character, he could of walk away. The Law is to protect & defend the victims, and we have the right to protect ourselves from imminent force that could lead to serious bodily harm or death.